« Unbelievable | Main | Food for Thought »

February 08, 2010

DADT Discharges and Readiness

DADTdischarges.jpg

I thought (because I genuinely had no idea what the answer was) it might be interesting to look at the impact of DADT discharges on troop strength. The chart above shows annual DADT discharges as a percent of the total force strength for the corresponding year.

Note that in no year did DADT discharges reach even one-tenth of one percent of the active forces. The last two bars are interesting.

The first of the last 2 bars (TOTAL since DADT) asks the question: "What if we fired the total number of service members discharged since 1994 all in one year (2009)?". This wildly exaggerates the effect of DADT since the 2009 force is considerably smaller than it was in 1994 and we're lumping 14 years worth of discharges into one year, but that's OK.

If all the losses since 1994 were combined into a single year, they still don't come to even 1% of the total force structure. The second bar simulates the effect of firing every service member let go for homosexuality over the past 30 years on 2009 troop strength. So what's the damage? A little over 2%. Keep in mind non-deployability rates due to pregnancy in the armed forces:

pregancy.jpg

This begs an interesting question:

If the military has decided it can easily tolerate having anywhere from 5-26% of our forces in a non-deployable status due to pregnancy, why are losses of under 1/10th of one percent unsupportable?


Data compiled from:

Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (1980–1996)

Defense Department (1997–2007)

Active Duty Total Force Report, Defense Manpower Data Center

Posted by Cassandra at February 8, 2010 01:36 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3536

Comments

Murtha is dead. Another Senate seat is up for grabs.

Posted by: Cricket at February 8, 2010 03:21 PM

I was never a fan of his, but I am sorry to hear that he is gone. May God rest his soul.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 8, 2010 03:54 PM

Ok, I'm officially a bad person. When I read Cricket's comment in this particular thread, I had a momentary unkind (and humorous) thought about Sen Murtha. Let's just say 'unfortunate juxtaposition' and leave it at that.

On topic, I believe you already know the answer to "If the military has decided it can easily tolerate having anywhere from 5-26% of our forces in a non-deployable status due to pregnancy, why are losses of under 1/10th of one percent unsupportable?", Miss Cass. It isn't, and it never was about that anyway.

I was particularly incensed about the "reports" that "Arab Lingusts" were fleeing the military in droves because of DADT. I signed up in May of 1992. DADT wasn't policy yet, in fact, it wasn't policy when I got to DLI in Monterrey for Arabic Language Training later that year. It WAS policy by the time I got out. And strangely enough, we lost no one from my class, or even my entire Company for DADT. We had SEVERAL Article 15's (the Army equivalent of Captain's Masts) for male/female interactions (i.e. getting caught with a female in your barracks room) but not a single incident in the year and a half I was there of male/male or female/female (though apparently there was one at the AF barracks... dunno what language those guys were there for). And yet, the MSM meme was that the military couldn't hold on to Arabic linguists because we were "gaying up the place". Did I know homosexual servicemembers. Sure. And every one of them signed up after DADT (so it's not like they lied during inprocessing). Did it impact their work? Not at all. But not one was actually a linguist, and none of them left the Army while I was there. So how much of an issue was it really? None at all.

Posted by: MikeD at February 8, 2010 03:59 PM

Cassie: Any chance you could point me to the numbers which underly the graph -- DADT discharges and total forces by year?

Posted by: levi from queens at February 8, 2010 04:20 PM

Mike, you can't use common sense! I heard that rumor right after we went to Iraq and could never find anything more.

Posted by: Cricket at February 8, 2010 04:25 PM

Sure - as soon as I get a change I'll retrieve them from my history. Sorry - was in a hurry!

This will get you most of the way there as it contains the lion's share of the data I used:

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/chart_murdock07-23-08.html

It's missing only 2008 and 2009. I can't remember where I got those years right now but I'll check as soon as I get the chance!

Posted by: Cassandra at February 8, 2010 04:26 PM

A good friend of ours was a Rhodes Scholar and is fluent in several Farsi dialects. This is all on is record. Another also speaks Farsi and Arabic.

Guess how often the Marine Corps has called on these folks to use their "desperately needed" translation skills? :p

*crickets chirping*

Posted by: Cassandra at February 8, 2010 04:28 PM

Mike:

Here's the GAO report on DADT discharges. It's a real eye opener. Haven't had time to analyze the data but most were discharged either in training or shortly after they entered the service.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05299.pdf

You'll find page 26 especially interesting :p

Posted by: Cassandra at February 8, 2010 04:30 PM

Jack Murtha was not a senator.

Posted by: Craig at February 8, 2010 04:42 PM

He wasn't a convicted felon either. Just goes to show that if there were any justice in this life, he would have been.

Posted by: bthun at February 8, 2010 04:52 PM

Allow me to translate those for you. In Arabic language training from 1994-2003... exactly 54 service members (not solders, not Marines... ALL FOUR SERVICES COMBINED) were discharged for homosexual conduct. Let me put that into a tiny bit of context for you. The time period I was at DLI (92-94) I was in Bravo Company. Bravo Company consisted of four platoons of soldiers. Each platoon had roughly 30 or so soldiers each. There were FIVE companies of soldiers, one of Marines, and roughly one of sailors and two of Air Force personnel. In that same time period. So if you took EVERY SINGLE person discharged for homosexual conduct in a ten year period, you'd equate to roughly two platoons worth. That's literally insignificant.

Oh and all that nonsense about below midpoint and above midpoint. That's telling you their DLPT scores (Defense Language Proficiency Test). A "midpoint" or 2 was what you needed to qualify for proficiency pay, and to qualify for a Linguist MOS. A "below midpoint" score in Listening or Reading disqualified you from being a linguist. Which means that of the 54, 18 wouldn't be able to qualify as linguists. Speaking proficiency only mattered for interrogators.

Posted by: MikeD at February 8, 2010 05:09 PM

So if all of the people drummed out of the service for DADT had stayed in, the military would STILL have to allow ex-felons and drug-traffikers into the military.

Of course, gays who were NOT ex-felons and drug traffikers might have joined the military because there was no discriminatory policy in place that discouraged them and maybe, just maybe, the military would not be forced to sign up ex-cons.

Posted by: Craig at February 8, 2010 05:12 PM

I suspected as much, Mike. Not quite as the media presents it, no es verdad? :p

Perspective is funny that way.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 8, 2010 05:15 PM

So if all of the people drummed out of the service for DADT had stayed in, the military would STILL have to allow ex-felons and drug-traffikers into the military.

Craig, the two are not connected no matter how badly you want them to be. But keep swinging.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 8, 2010 05:17 PM

...didn't it use to be the Big Thing for a judge to tell some guy they were trying "well, you can go to jail or you can go to the military"?

Wouldn't that suggest that...um... criminals have been a significant factor for a while?

I'm going to have to hold on to this-- great post, ma'am!

Posted by: Foxfier at February 8, 2010 06:00 PM

I hadn't even realized Murtha was ill.

Posted by: Grim at February 8, 2010 06:45 PM

...didn't it use to be the Big Thing for a judge to tell some guy they were trying "well, you can go to jail or you can go to the military"?

The morals waiver thing is one of the dumber canards of the Left. The military has ALWAYS had morals waivers. In addition to that, recruiting standards have ALWAYS fluctuated with the business cycle.

The military is like any other employer: they compete with civilian firms for good people. When unemployment goes up they can afford to be pickier. When we're close to full employment, they relax their standards (just as any employer does if he needs to fill certain positions).

The Marines have higher standards for two reasons:

1. They're smaller and don't need as many people.

2. Their elite reputation attracts more (and more highly qualified) recruits.

It is beyond dumb (although typical) to pretend that the armed forces - and the Army in particular - have always maintained sky high standards. The real irony is that the same folks who make such a big deal about how "dangerous" it is to relax recruiting standards want to bring back the draft!

It was only going to an all volunteer force that made higher standards possible in the first place, but that's too much like logic for these folks. The draft was a lottery system - not a lot of screening going on there.

Morons.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 8, 2010 06:59 PM

It also bears mentioning that the same folks who decry hiring "criminals" are the very same folks who believe felons should be allowed to vote and think we don't try hard enough to rehabilitate criminals.

What the helk do they think happens when the military hires kids who have been in trouble?

*rolling eyes*

Posted by: Cassandra at February 8, 2010 07:01 PM

I haven't done any research into it, but I do know that several people I know who need GEDs have been turned down from various services last year-- no criminal records, just didn't graduate.

Odd, because I had a half-dozen girls out of 90 who had to get their GEDs in bootcamp...

I wonder why these same folks haven't hollered about that?

Posted by: Foxfier at February 8, 2010 07:33 PM

The Marines have very high standards, but... 26 percent? Really? That's amazing.

Posted by: Grim at February 8, 2010 08:26 PM

It is beyond dumb (although typical) to pretend that the armed forces - and the Army in particular - have always maintained sky high standards. The real irony is that the same folks who make such a big deal about how "dangerous" it is to relax recruiting standards want to bring back the draft!

They're from the same political gene pool as the jerkwads who inflicted McNamara's 100,000 on us to test their belief that the Army could *train* intelligence into people with an IQ of 40...

Posted by: BillT at February 8, 2010 09:34 PM

Foxfier, it is about Equal Opportunity. I was really annoyed when the PT standards were revised to 'cook' the statistics for females in the Army.
The Engineer should have gone into the standard for the 35 yo group, but instead not only did he stay in his same age group, he had an increase of what he had to do, such as five more situps, pushups, etc. Not only that, a male recruit of the same age as the female had to do more than the previous year's standard.

Posted by: Cricket at February 9, 2010 07:22 AM

Actually, the fact that the military historically has no problem allowing convicted felons to serve as needed to fill the ranks makes the argument against allowing openly gay people to serve seem even more ridiculous.

Serving alongside convicted drug users, burglars, arsonists and armed robbers on the battlefield has negligible effect on "good order and discipline" in a time of need.

As long as they are not GAY drug users, burglars, arsonists and armed robbers, that is. Or even if they are just gay and not ex-cons.

The greatest fighting force the world has ever seen suddenly comes down with a bad case of the vapors at that point.

Posted by: Craig at February 9, 2010 07:25 AM

Thanks for the information. I had no idea.

Posted by: tomg51 at February 9, 2010 07:47 AM

Craig:

You know, you have convinced me. It is really dumb to maintain separate showers, bathrooms, locker rooms, and sleeping arrangements for men and women. The fact men and women are attracted to each other is utterly irrelevant. If we get rid of these unnecessarily complicated arrangements, there will be no fraternization or sexual harassment because people will just ignore the temptation.

There really is no argument to make against this proposal because - as you have so convincingly pointed out - people can be relied upon to behave themselves.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 08:08 AM

Yeah M'lady, we just have to face up to the modern reality that says the military does exist only to serve as an affirmation of the individual, in all their variants.

At least we can take comfort in knowing that the leadership will apply uniform standards of discipline and justice to all service members, regardless of any politically protected classification to which they may flock.

Posted by: bthun at February 9, 2010 08:40 AM

At least we can take comfort in knowing that the leadership will apply uniform standards of discipline and justice to all service members, regardless of any politically protected classification to which they may flock.

I saw the smoke coming out of your ears when you typed that, bthun :p

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 08:56 AM

Cricket-
I do know that a bunch of the guys also needed GEDs, I just didn't tutor them so I don't know exactly how many there were.

Posted by: Foxfier at February 9, 2010 10:08 AM

Yeah, smokin' ain't the half of it.

I want to fly Warthogs or Apaches, but I'm told that, in spite of being a vet, I'm now too old, only by a decade or so BTW, and my titanium, erector-set, spinal cord augmentation, along with my need for corrective vision devices, etc. will disqualify me from flying!

I call ageist prejudice and a pattern of DISCRIMINATORY actions against the less than 100% ambulatory with 20-40 vision, curmudgeon class!

Maybe I need to shop this with the ACLU in order to force the U.S. military to accommodate me, da^^^ it!

Posted by: bthun at February 9, 2010 10:08 AM

"people can be relied upon to behave themselves"

As you pointed out, the military has historically believed convicted felons can behave themselves, despite evidence to the contrary.

A brief study in 2007 by the Center for Naval Analyses tracked the attrition rates of Marines who enlisted with legal waivers between 2003 and 2005.

I cannot find exact numbers, unfortunately, but according to a WaPo article:

"those with waivers were "quite a bit more likely" than other recruits to be separated from the service for misconduct within two years, and "recruits with felony waivers have the highest chance of a misconduct separation," it found."

link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/21/AR2008042103295_2.html?sid=ST2008042103473

The fact that you are more than willing to give ex-cons the chance to serve their country honorably is positively liberal of you.

What a shame you can't see fit to extend that same courtesy to homosexuals without forcing them to hide who they are.

Posted by: Craig at February 9, 2010 10:18 AM

bthun,

Did the ACLU force the military to raise the age limits and lower the physical and academic standards for new recruits, or did they do it all by themselves to meet the needs they have? None of that affects "good order and discipline", apparently.

Cheer up, though, if we get sucked into a war with Iran soon you'll probably get your wish and be allowed to fly.

Posted by: Craig at February 9, 2010 10:33 AM

So, I take it we're agreed that the military should go to unisex quarters?

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 11:38 AM

I am not aware of any other militarys that have openly gay servicemembers doing that, so I don't see a reason for us to do that.

Posted by: Craig at February 9, 2010 11:46 AM

What's the objection?

Surely it would be more efficient. And cheaper too. And if we are willing to tolerate the risk that felons might break the rules and the risk that gay servicemembers might break the rules, what is the rationalization for preserving costly duplication of facilities whose only purpose is to protect against what you say is a non-existent problem?

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 12:42 PM

Craig,
That comment was MINE, not bthun's and (sarcasm on)I resent the inequitude and sexism inferred in your comment. You may not see it as being there, but as a female I do. (sarcasm off)

I don't know *who* told the Army to raise the standards for older men, but it was done so the libtards would be satisfied their pc agenda was working.

And yes, Craig, it DOES affect readiness because last time I checked, a 110# female doesn't have the same upper body strength of a 150# man and rucking the same equipment (which weighs about 75#) in a combat zone means one will be left behind at the risk of others. No one is left behind, which puts others at risk.

Cassandra, I think Craig has watched 'Starship Troopers' and hopes the military will soon be totally integrated. How titillating!

Posted by: Cricket at February 9, 2010 12:54 PM

Cricket,

Please read bthun's comment @ 10:08 AM Feb 9 about wanting to fly Warthogs or Apaches before assuming I was addressing your comment.

Posted by: Craig at February 9, 2010 01:39 PM

I know Murtha was not a Senator. I was thinking of something else when I typed it and just now noticed my gaffe. Thank you.

However, your comment was of sufficient ambiguity that I took it upon myself to be self-rightous about it:

"Did the ACLU force the military to raise the age limits and lower the physical and academic standards for new recruits, or did they do it all by themselves to meet the needs they have? None of that affects "good order and discipline", apparently."

You see, I was also talking about PT standards. Ergo, I am offended. I just have to be! Don't take away my right to be offended at something someone else said, regardless of who said it or to whom it was directed!

Posted by: Cricket at February 9, 2010 02:07 PM

"The fact that you are more than willing to give ex-cons the chance to serve their country honorably is positively liberal of you.

What a shame you can't see fit to extend that same courtesy to homosexuals without forcing them to hide who they are."


Not really a valid argument. The term "ex-cons" suggests that a person committed a crime in the past and was punished for his/her crime. The military has made the determination that some of these people get the chance to "honorably" serve their country through military service. The key requirement is that these "ex-cons" are restricted in their behavior, ie, they are restricted from the behavior that caused them to be "cons" in the first place. A violation of this restriction causes them to lose the chance to "honorably" serve their country. They have to modify their behavior to serve. Homosexuals are permitted to honorably serve their country today, and they are not even subject to the intrusive questioning about their sexuality as "ex-cons" are subject to intrusive questioning about their criminal histories. While on duty, they must modify their behavior to serve. The real issue for the homosexual community is not that homosexuals cannot honorably serve their nation; they do that today. The real issue is that the homosexual community wants to use the most respected institution in this country (the military) for purposes of affirming their lifestyle. It is about forcing a lifestyle choice on the country through its military, pure and simple.

Posted by: Will at February 9, 2010 03:44 PM

"It is about forcing a lifestyle choice on the country through its military, pure and simple."

Well, that might be true if there weren't gays anywhere else but the US military, but we both know that isn't the case.

Posted by: Craig at February 9, 2010 04:22 PM

Cricket,

I wouldn't dream of taking away your right to be offended!

Posted by: Craig at February 9, 2010 04:22 PM

Cassandra,

I never said sex isn't an issue the military has to contend with or that all problems with human behavior will magically be resolved with the repeal of DADT.

What is true, however, is that pretending gays don't exist has not, does not, and will not make teh gay go away.

So many other countries in the free world have moved beyond this meaningless fear of the "gay agenda" and yet we remain literally stuck on stupid with DADT.

Posted by: Craig at February 9, 2010 05:04 PM

What is true, however, is that pretending gays don't exist has not, does not, and will not make teh gay go away.

As with so many things you have said, that is needlessly insulting, Craig. Nowhere in anything I have said has there been any desire to make homosexuality "go away". That's another straw man that has more to do with your prejudices about people who don't agree with you than their actual opinions.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 9, 2010 05:13 PM

I am not saying you said anything of the sort.

I am saying that DADT has done nothing to address the fact that gays have, do, and always will exist in the military.

Having read alot of material while discussing this post, I realized that we are talking about the exact same issues in the same exact way they were talking about the military's outright ban of homosexuals back in 1992/1993.

DADT hasn't advanced the conversation one jot.

In the meantime, the world has passed us by. The military leaders who were strong proponents of DADT in 1993, seeing and studying the success other countries have had integrating gays into the military over the last 17 years, have come to realize the error of their ways.

Posted by: Craig at February 9, 2010 09:26 PM

Apparently, there are already gay people in the male and female American military forces. Some of them are kicked out for being discovered; others remain either because they haven't been discovered, or because (presumably) the good job they do outweighs the concern that they'll jump their same-sex colleagues in the shower. These people are American taxpaying citizens and want to serve. If the brass can cope with the idea of openly gap service people, maybe the Chicken Littles and Nervous Nellies here can learn to do the same thing.

Posted by: I Call BS at February 10, 2010 12:51 AM

Y'all probably figured out that my last post was not meant to be a commercial for casual clothes.

Posted by: I Call BS at February 10, 2010 12:52 AM

Name calling is always such an impressive tactic. You must be really proud of yourself, ICBS.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 10, 2010 05:28 AM

Good call, ICBS.

Posted by: Craig at February 10, 2010 06:09 AM

See? Craig is proud of you too. You both do credit to your cause.

"The brass", as defined by you, so far equals... what?

Colin Powell: retired.
John Shalikashvili: retired.
Adm. Mullen: CJCS
Gates: a civilian.

Now let's look at the entire JCS:

Casey doesn't think the ban should be lifted until we're out of Iraq (essentially Jan 2012). I wonder why if there will be no problems?

Conway opposes lifting the ban. Period.

I don't believe Schwartz has taken a stand either way.

Roughead has also refused to comment, at least last time I checked.

Update: I am closing the comments to these two posts. Well over 130 comments is, I think, sufficient chance for everyone to argue their position. When all people have left to offer is snotty insults, I think we're done.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 10, 2010 07:20 AM